Decisions, decisions
By Lady Liberty
web posted October 3, 2005
Last week, I made a decision. I based it on fact and logic. It
was, in fact, the right decision. But as it turned out, it wasn't the
best decision. I spent the entire week regretting what I'd done
and working to reverse it. Fortunately, it was a decision the
effects of which could be reversed. Oh, it wasn't easy (which
might be a good thing since the harder I had to work, the deeper
the lesson sunk in), but it got done in the end.
I tell you this not to give the impression that I rarely make
mistakes (even my own mother knows better than that), but
rather to illustrate the fact that even decisions made for the right
reasons and with the best motivations in the world still might not
represent good choices.
What makes many bad decisions palatable at all is that those
making them often realize sooner or later that they could have
done a better job. If they're at all honest with themselves, they'll
then work to change what they've done. This methodology only
works, however, when the decision makers can admit they're in
error which usually entails them having good intentions in the first
place. But those good intentions alone aren't enough; the mistake
must also be confessed for any reversal to take place.
Consider for example the firearms laws in Washington DC.
While there are doubtless some politicians there who maintain
that no one be permitted the means to self defense purely to
acquire and assert their own power, I'd be willing to bet that the
majority who favor such stringent gun control actually think
they're doing the right thing. Their reasons are unassailable: They
want to protect citizens, particularly children. Their methodology,
however, will only work in a fantasy land where criminals obey
laws. Since there is no such place, gun control in Washington (as
well as New York City and Chicago) has succeeded only in
disarming the law abiding and creating a haven for armed bad
guys.
The firearms laws in Washington (and anywhere else) that are
causing the problem could be repealed tomorrow. But for that to
happen, those who consistently vote for even more draconian
gun control are going to have to admit that what they're doing
isn't working, and that it never will. Unfortunately, instead of
taking a look at the facts, their good intentions often override all
else with thoughts of still more laws instead — which only
stimulates a freedom-stealing monster that feeds on itself when
those laws don't work any better than the existing laws do.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (who, for the record, is the single human
being I believe most responsible for the worst governmental and
societal problems we have today) almost certainly had good
intentions when he implemented Social Security and the welfare
system as we know it. He wanted to honor dead or debilitated
soldiers' sacrifices by offering pensions of sorts to their widows
and children. Instead, an ever-expanding behemoth has become
a top-heavy pyramid scheme threatening to topple altogether
unless ever larger pillars of tax dollars are used to prop it up. He
wanted to ensure that men could find jobs to feed starving
families or, if no jobs could be found, could at least get a few
dollars from the government to tide their families over. Instead,
we've now seen government employment bloat beyond
recognition or any remote semblance of efficiency, and whole
generations of Americans raised in an atmosphere and an attitude
of absolute entitlement.
Neither Social Security nor welfare as we know it could simply
cease to exist tomorrow without grave repercussions for
dependents. But the failure of many politicians to acknowledge
that, despite worthy goals, the programs aren't working and
never will is preventing even an attempt at reform or realistic
change. And without change, still more people become
dependent on government largesse which means any change is
becoming progressively more difficult. Compounding the
problem is the fact that virtually all of those who benefit from the
taxes paid primarily by others are eligible to vote. As such, even
those politicians who might admit privately that there's a problem
won't publicly offer criticism or acknowledge the error of their
ways when so many potential votes are at risk as a result.
I've made clear in the past that I place a good deal of blame for
the tragic deaths (and even many of the damages ) in New
Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina directly at the feet of
New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor
Kathleen Blanco. But however ill-advised their decisions proved
to be, I don't for a minute think that either of them intended to
wreak as much havoc among city residents as possible.
Nagin was apparently possessed of some sort of a Pollyanna
outlook that permitted him to assume the best even when the
worst was clearly delineated on weather maps. When the time
came to make a decision, he hesitated because he didn't want to
cause any disruption; by the time he finally did decide, it was too
late to employ much of even the insufficient disaster plan that was
allegedly in place. Blanco, meanwhile, didn't want to let the
federal government usurp her authority unless it was absolutely
necessary (never mind the fact that the state was in no way
prepared to offer immediate or comprehensive assistance to
those affected). Given how federal authorities all too often run
roughshod over state and local agents, her reluctance is
understandable if not all that bright under the circumstances.
Meanwhile, no matter what Blanco or Nagin did or didn't do,
there was a host of citizenry in New Orleans who, rather than
making a decision for themselves, sat back and waited for the
government to take care of them. That decision isn't quite as
stupid as it sounds seeing as how government had taken care of
them in the past and, along with that care, had willingly taken a
good deal of the "burden" of self-responsibility from them. The
motivations of government at higher levels almost certainly
involve some power (dependence offers plenty of authority to
those on whom the dependents are dependent), but the
motivations of the ordinary citizens involved are plain and
understandable if not commendable: it's easier to let somebody
else do all the work.
Even terrorists who murder and maim innocents may have
motivations we can appreciate if not condone. They want to be
left alone by the rest of the world; they want to convert the
"infidel" to the one "true" faith; they want their country back.
Obviously, terrorist attacks aren't the way to do that. In fact,
terrorist attacks have ensured the rest of the world won't leave
them alone, have exposed millions of people to Islam in a very
unflattering way, and have resulted in the invasions of Muslim
countries by non-Muslim military forces. But the terror groups
must acknowledge to themselves that their technique is seriously
flawed before they'll admit it to the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, like far too many less deadly but just as mistaken
folks, they're not inclined to see their mistakes.
In the war on terror, invasions into Afghanistan and Iraq went far
beyond merely capturing and putting on trial some known
terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It seems to me that this is —
in some measure, at least — the fault of those who jumped in to
action before considering any concrete plans for jumping back
out again. Whatever the original plan, we're now ensconced in
what is essentially a long term occupation of Iraq. Insurgents are
fighting for sovereignty and freedom there, and even though their
notion of "freedom" almost certainly is no such thing, they're
gaining some sympathy. With their attacks, however, they're
ensuring the long term occupation lasts even longer. Meanwhile,
by essentially forcing democracy down the throats of people
who have little experience with it and that don't really want it,
Americans aren't looking like they're making the best of decision,
either.
The Bush administration says it merely wants an end to terror
and freedom for all peoples. Try to argue against that, and you
can't. Such goals are just about a high-minded as they come. But
the fact that the goals are such good ones shouldn't be used to
justify any and every means to attain them! No matter the intent,
aren't there lines we cannot cross if we intend to avoid some
nasty unintended consequences? Aren't there risks we must be
willing to take if we wish to remain free even as we fight for
freedom? Mistakes, of course, have already been made; more
will be made. And however they happen, whether through a lack
of foresight or a lack of good sense, such mistakes are all too
often clothed in the glory of good intentions. Perhaps that's why
so many mistake the road to heaven for the road that actually
leads somewhere else...
Whether we like to admit it or not, decisions have consequences.
Some are good, some are not so good. And some, both good
and bad, are entirely unintended. That's why, when we make
decisions — with the exception, obviously, of emergency on-
the-spot choices — we've got to consider them from every
angle. Good and bad outcomes are often obvious; unintended
consequences are often not. If our examination shows something
we don't like, or leads us to believe unintended consequences of
the not-so-good variety could result, we might leave well enough
alone until we consider other options.
No matter what our motivation or our careful consideration of
potential results, we have also got to be prepared for the bad
thing we didn't see in advance to happen. We must accept both
our culpability and our error. Then we must act immediately to
rectify what we've done or haven't done if it's at all possible for
us to do so. At the very least, we must learn from those mistakes
so that we don't make similar ones again. Our personal lives will
be the better for it if we do, and so will our reputations.
And when we're not making decisions for ourselves, we need to
keep an eye on every single one of those men and women we're
supposed to trust to make decisions on our behalf. If they're
incapable of being as responsible and mature as we are,
acknowledging their mistakes and working to fix them, and
taking care to avoid whenever possible the horrors of unintended
consequences, then we've got another decision to make. That
decision, of course, involves the ballot box. If we choose not to
wield one of the few powers still in the hands of the people, the
consequences may be unintended, but I can assure you they'll
continue to be very, very bad for us — and for freedom.
Lady Liberty is a graphic designer and pro-freedom activist
currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other
political and educational information is available on her web site,
Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House, at
http://www.ladylibrty.com. E-mail Lady Liberty at
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com